Objectives
To assess the frequency, intensity, and clinical impact of [18F]FDG-avidity of axillary lymph nodes after vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna) in patients referred for oncological FDG PET/CT.
Methods
One hundred forty patients referred for FDG PET/CT during February and March 2021 after first or second vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna were retrospectively included. FDG-avidity of ipsilateral axillary lymph nodes was measured and compared. Assuming no knowledge of prior vaccination, metastatic risk was analyzed by two readers and the clinical impact was evaluated.
Results
FDG PET/CT showed FDG-avid lymph nodes ipsilateral to the vaccine injection in 75/140 (54%) patients with a mean SUVmax of 5.1 (range 2.0 – 17.3). FDG-avid lymph nodes were more frequent in patients vaccinated with Moderna than Pfizer-BioNTech (36/50 [72%] vs. 39/90 [43%] cases, p < 0.001). Metastatic risk of unilateral FDG-avid axillary lymph nodes was rated unlikely in 52/140 (37%), potential in 15/140 (11%), and likely in 8/140 (6%) cases. Clinical management was affected in 17/140 (12%) cases.
Conclusions
FDG-avid axillary lymph nodes are common after COVID-19 vaccination. The avidity of lymph nodes is more frequent in Moderna compared to that in Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines. To avoid relatively frequent clinical dilemmas, we recommend carefully taking the history for prior vaccination in patients undergoing FDG PET/CT and administering the vaccine contralateral to primary cancer.
Key Points
• PET/CT showed FDG-avid axillary lymph nodes ipsilateral to the vaccine injection site in 54% of 140 oncological patients after COVID-19 vaccination.
• FDG-avid lymphadenopathy was observed significantly more frequently in Moderna compared to patients receiving Pfizer-BioNTech-vaccines.
• Patients should be screened for prior COVID-19 vaccination before undergoing PET/CT to enable individually tailored recommendations for clinical management.
Objectives: To assess the frequency and intensity of [18F]-PSMA-1007 axillary uptake in lymph nodes ipsilateral to COVID-19 vaccination with BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) in patients with prostate cancer referred for oncological [18F]-PSMA PET/CT or PET/MR imaging. Methods: One hundred twenty six patients undergoing [18F]-PSMA PET/CT or PET/MR imaging were retrospectively included. [18F]-PSMA activity (SUVmax) of ipsilateral axillary lymph nodes was measured and compared with the non-vaccinated contralateral side-and with a non-vaccinated negative control group. [18F]-PSMA active lymph node metastases were measured to serve as quantitative reference. Results: There was a significant difference in SUVmax in ipsilateral and compared to contralateral axillary lymph nodes in the vaccination group (n = 63, p < 0.001) and no such difference in the non-vaccinated control group (n = 63, p = 0.379). Vaccinated patients showed mildly increased axillary lymph node [18F]-PSMA uptake as compared to non-vaccinated patients (p = 0.03). [18F]-PSMA activity of of lymph node metastases was significantly higher (p < 0.001) compared to axillary lymph nodes of vaccinated patients. Conclusions: Our data suggest mildly increased [18F]-PSMA uptake after COVID-19 vaccination in ipsilateral axillary lymph nodes. However, given the significantly higher [18F]-PSMA uptake of prostatic lymph node metastases compared to “reactive” nodes after COVID-19 vaccination, no therapeutic and diagnostic dilemma is to be expected. Advances in knowledge: No specific preparations or precautions (e.g., adaption of vaccination scheduling) need to be undertaken in patients undergoing [18F]-PSMA PET imaging after COVID-19 vaccination.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.